Crimea was not a non-nuclear zone in an international law sense but was part of Ukraine, a state which doesn't possess nuclear arms.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The Ukraine has a long history of either being part of the Soviet Union or within that sphere.
Nuclear deterrence doesn't work outside of the Russian - U.S. context; Saddam Hussein showed that.
Russia has every reason to dispose of its nuclear arsenal... to suit its interests and international legal obligations.
There are nuclear-weapons-free zones in several parts of the world already, except that they're not implemented fully, because the U.S. won't allow it.
Quite frankly, Russian aggression in Ukraine and its illegal occupation of Crimea remind us that we still have a good deal more work to do to guarantee the strategic vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace.
Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation's sovereignty and an affront to the international community.
The Ukrainians don't have the military means to stand up to Russia, but we haven't helped them militarily, either.
Those who really value Ukrainian sovereignty should opt for real independence and a positive neutrality: neither a plaything of the West nor Moscow.
The other countries did not share the same concern the United States had in the early '90's - that North Korea actually had an ongoing nuclear weapons program.
Georgia does not need Russia as an enemy.
No opposing quotes found.